In re J.M.I

6 Citing cases

  1. L. M. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

    No. 03-24-00483-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 6, 2024)

    He argues that a trial court has no discretion to hear and decide a case in a defendant's absence before the defendant was notified to appear. See In re J.M.I., 223 S.W.3d 742, 746 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2007, no pet.); see also Rogers v. Texas Com. Bank-Reagan, 755 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1988) (holding that court had no discretion to hear and determine case in absence of defendant before he was notified to appear). In J.M.I., a husband and wife sued to gain custody of their nephew.

  2. Cairns v. Lakeview Shopping Plaza, Inc.

    Civil Action 4:22-cv-834-SDJ-KPJ (E.D. Tex. May. 25, 2023)   Cited 3 times

    (citing Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990)). As such, “[t]he affidavit must state: ‘(1) the location of the defendant's usual place of business or usual place of abode or other place where he can probably be found and (2) the specific facts showing that service had been attempted without success under either subsection of Rule 106(a) at the location mentioned in the affidavit.'” McKenzie v. Star Shuttle, Inc., No. 5:19-CV-749-JKP, 2019 WL 4482737, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2019) (quoting In re J.M.I., 223 S.W.3d 742, 744 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2007, no pet.)).

  3. McKenzie v. Star Shuttle, Inc.

    No. 5:19-cv-749-JKP (W.D. Tex. Sep. 18, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    The affidavit must state: "(1) the location of the defendant's usual place of business or usual place of abode or other place where he can probably be found and (2) the specific facts showing that service had been attempted without success under either subsection of Rule 106(a) at the location mentioned in the affidavit." In re J.M.I., 223 S.W.3d 742, 744 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007, no pet.) (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 106(b)) (emphasis in original); accord Farrar v. Fed. Credit Corp., No. 4:10-CV-952-A, 2011 WL 2185726, at *2 (N.D. Tex. June 3, 2011). Here, Plaintiff's exhibits show that Walker is the registered agent for Defendant Star Shuttle, Inc.

  4. Singh v. Gill

    No. 05-19-01146-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 20, 2021)

    Neither affidavit, however, stated facts showing that service under rule 106(a) had been attempted. See id; Harrison v. Dallas Court Reporting Coll., Inc., 589 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1979, no writ) (process server's affidavit not showing how many attempts at service were made or the times at which service was attempted was inadequate to support substituted service); Coronado v. Norman, 111 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003, pet. denied) (affidavit failing to state dates and times service was attempted is insufficient to support substituted service); see also In re J.M.I., 223 S.W.3d 742, 745 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007, no pet.) (affidavit merely detailing respondent's attempts to avoid service was inadequate to support substituted service). Moreover, the affidavits do not exhibit the diligence necessary to support substituted service.

  5. Davis v. Martin

    No. 01-07-00831-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 12, 2009)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that affidavit that did not state that address for service was usual place of abode did not meet requirements of Rule 106(b)

    See In re J.M.I, 223 S.W.3d 742, 745 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2007, no pet.) (holding that affidavits that did not state number of attempts at service or calendar dates of attempted service failed to comply with requirements of Rule 106(b) and were "fatally defective"); In re Sloan, 214 S.W.3d 217, 222-23 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2007, orig. proceeding) (holding that affidavit that did not state dates or times of attempted service and did not state that address was defendant's usual place of abode did not meet requirements of Rule 106(b) and failed to support motion for substituted service); Coronado v. Norman, 111 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2003, pet. denied) (reversing default judgment when affidavit supporting motion for substituted service did not contain specific dates and times of service); Olympia Marble Granite, 17 S.W.3d at 444 (reversing default judgment when affidavit did not state that address for substitute service was defendant's usual place of place of business or business owner's usual place of abode); Garrels v. Wales Transp. Inc., 706 S.W.

  6. In re Marriage of Little

    No. 10-08-00078-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 6, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    See, e.g., Mathis v. Lockwood, 166 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam); Finlan v. Peavy, 205 S.W.3d 647, 653-57 (Tex.App.-Waco 2006, no pet.); In re J.M.I., 223 S.W.3d 742, 746 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2007, no pet.). Rule of Civil Procedure 21 provides: "An application to the court for an order and notice of any hearing thereon, not presented during a hearing or trial, shall be served upon all other parties not less than three days before the time specified for the hearing unless otherwise provided by these rules or shortened by the court."